Microsoft/Novell

[ted leslie]

On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 16:09 -0500, Scott Elcomb wrote:
> On 11/8/06, ted leslie <tleslie-RBVUpeUoHUc at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > Nothing that is quick straight forward engineering should be patentable.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > But the Patent office can't be expected to dive in deep on each submission,
> 
> No?  Then what is the Patent Office's function?

Time stamp it, make sure its concisely written, and if
an easy enough concept to grasp, see if its in fact a unique technology.
Based on what you pay (For a patent), there isn't the funds to put a
group of professionals on it for the period of time it takes to digest a
complex patent.

I'd keep the patent process the same (i wouldnt complicate it any more,
they are slow as molasses as it is now). 

But for conflict/enforcement/defence of patents, I'd make it so a
non-biased review board made up of university grad/prof's/etc reviews
(as a N-man/woman panel) the merits of, and rate the uniqueness as a
percentage, and use that with respect allow court injunction (i.e. RIM),
and other factors. This peer review would be used to make the parties
realize if they pursue in court, what the like outcome would be.
So, in other words, MS would have to get say 24 university profs (in
that area of expertise)  to rank there patent for merit and against
others.
Most conflicts/enforcement would probably rank very low and the lawsuits
wouldn't happen, and/or, they could, but the ranking would make it
unrealistic to shut down the (possibly) offending party, until the case
is concluded, and if guilt, damages can be awarded.
Peer comments would be freely made available to be used in the offense
or defense of the case if it goes to court. To keep the cost down for
the small guy (up against Goliath i.e. MS).
If MS were to take to court, a patent that would be defeated, then its
worse for MS then if they just keep it as a "cold war nuke".
This is one of the reasons i don't think a lot of patent conflict go to
court, as its usually a poker bluff game, and I think a lot of the time
the person wanting to enforce (BS) patents knows they really  don't want
a outcome (officially) decided. Lot better to scare the money out of
your competitors, then to risk having a patent struck down.

The only problem with patents is the ridiculous cost to fight a court
case, often prohibitive . That why if society allowed its  (gov't
funded) educational institute professional to peer review this stuff (as
a civic duty), it would be nice. Lets face it , if your countries
university professionals can't understand or comment on the stuff, then
you got bigger problems to be concerned about.
I know lots of profs at universities that would love to weight in on a
MS patent issue :)


-tl
 
> 
> > The MS patent was larger then the other 11 put together. It doesn't
> > apply to mine, I know that, but I have to understand their shit, to be
> > able to defend mine :(
> 
> Again I have to agree - a most unfortunate truth that won't go away
> any time soon...  without a fight.  By "supporting" software patents
> (by proxy; by applying for them) the problem will not get any better.
> Again, this is my opinion and no offence is intended.  I just see it
> as increasing the amount of work required to fix the real problems.
> [Like Patent Offices actually looking at and validating patents prior
> to awarding them.  Running keyword searches and asking for applicants
> to refute potential infringement might be efficient (in the temporal
> sense) but can hardly be considered a robust form of research.]
> 
> >From a business perspective, I see the appeal of software patents.  As
> a life-long student of the information the world has to offer, I see
> them in a completely different light.
> 
> Take care - and best of luck with your endeavours.
> 

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists